PDA

View Full Version : Lendl vs Federer - reclaiming year end No 1 spot


IvanAndreevich
12-01-2009, 03:03 PM
Hey guys

Anyone familiar with the field Lendl was up against, and what he had to do, to reclaim the year end No 1 ranking after losing it?

Just wondering whose achievement is more impressive - his or Fed's this year.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 03:13 PM
When Lendl reclaimed #1 in 1989 he was ranked in the top 10 above Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Michael Chang, Brad Gilbert, Andre Agassi, Aaron Krickstein, Alberto Mancini and Jay Berger.

1989 was a very strong year for Lendl. He started the year by capturing his first Australian Open title with a straight sets final victory over Miloslav Mecir and went on to claim 10 titles out of 17 tournaments he entered.

But it was Mats Wildander who stole his #1 ranking in '88 with his amazing 3-slam year. Wilander faded badly, ending '89 at #12, leaving the path open again for Lendl.

So I think Federer is more impressive considering how incredibly strong the top 10 are at the moment.

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 03:18 PM
When Lendl reclaimed #1 in 1989 he was ranked in the top 10 above Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Michael Chang, Brad Gilbert, Andre Agassi, Aaron Krickstein, Alberto Mancini and Jay Berger.

But it was Mats Wildander who stole his #1 ranking in '88 with his amazing 3-slam year. Wilander faded badly, ending '89 at #12, leaving the path open again for Lendl.

So I think Federer is more impressive considering how incredibly strong the top 10 are at the moment.

Wilander deserved that #1 ranking fair-and-square, like all players who manage to rack up the most no. of points during a year ;). He lost it because of injuries - he even underwent surgery if I'm not mistaken. As such Lendl got a good chance of taking it back, and such happened.
In all, not that different from the circumstances in case of Fedal.

grafselesfan
12-01-2009, 03:24 PM
It is hard to say. I always felt Becker was the real #1 of 1989. The U.S Open final determined who was the true best player of that year. On the other hand I dont think Federer was going to be #1 again without Nadal's mid season injury.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 03:25 PM
Wilander deserved that #1 ranking fair-and-square, like all players who manage to rack up the most no. of points during a year ;).

Well i totally agree with this which is why I said he had an amazing 3-slam year.

IvanAndreevich
12-01-2009, 03:26 PM
Looks like Lendl got 1 GS and 1 GS RU in 1989. Fed got 2 GS and 2 GS RU this year. And he lost those 2 in 5 sets.

Does anyone have the point total Lendl accumulated in 1989?

Rhino
12-01-2009, 03:27 PM
On the other hand I dont think Federer was going to be #1 again without Nadal's mid season injury.

Sure, but Federer probably would never have lost the #1 ranking in the first place if not for mono, so maybe it evens out.... but I know that is very debatable, so who knows.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 03:30 PM
In 1989, Becker won two Grand Slam singles titles, the only year he won more than one. After losing to Edberg in the French Open semifinals, he defeated Edberg in the Wimbledon final and then beat Lendl in the US Open final. He also helped West Germany retain the Davis Cup, defeating Andre Agassi in the semifinal round 6–7, 6–7, 7–6, 6–4, 6–4. As a result, Becker was named Player of The Year by the ATP Tour. The World No. 1 ranking, however, still eluded him.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker)

dlk
12-01-2009, 03:32 PM
Not even debatable; Fed is superior to Lendl. Ivan may win 2 of 10 against FED/89 vs.09

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 03:35 PM
Sure, but Federer probably would never have lost the #1 ranking in the first place if not for mono, so maybe it evens out.... but I know that is very debatable, so who knows.

Injuries and illnesses are all part of the 'sh*t-that-happens' in sport. It's no reason to claim that 'another' guy taking over the #1 spot because of it is 'undeserved', as some folks seem to think.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 03:44 PM
Injuries and illnesses are all part of the 'sh*t-that-happens' in sport. It's no reason to claim that 'another' guy taking over the #1 spot because of it is 'undeserved', as some folks seem to think.

Anyone who gets to #1 deserves it. Especially Federer. :)

GustafsonFanatic
12-01-2009, 03:44 PM
delete post

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 03:45 PM
Not even debatable; Fed is superior to Lendl. Ivan may win 2 of 10 against FED/89 vs.09

Anyone in the current top 20 would beat peak Lendl, that's not even debatable due to changes in raquet/strings/training.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 03:51 PM
So, Federer's accomplishment was definitely more impressive since he had to win 2 slams to get back to No.1 (the same 2 slams he lost the year before). Although you must admit he had some luck at FO and Wimledon.

I don't think you can say that it's luck any more than you can say that Nadal was lucky that Verdasco didn't beat him in Australia, and Del Potro was lucky he won those tie-breaks. Roddick could still have made the final of Wimbledon with or without Nadal, and Federer could've defeated Nadal at the French this year, as he did in Madrid, we'll never know.

OrangeOne
12-01-2009, 03:55 PM
Anyone in the current top 20 would beat peak Lendl, that's not even debatable due to changes in raquet/strings/training.

Couldn't agree more.

Also: Most of the past power-based #1s would, if trained with modern methods using modern equipment, perform on a level with the current bunch. Class is class, full-stop.

GustafsonFanatic
12-01-2009, 04:03 PM
I don't think you can say that it's luck any more than you can say that Nadal was lucky that Verdasco didn't beat him in Australia, and Del Potro was lucky he won those tie-breaks. Roddick could still have made the final of Wimbledon with or without Nadal, and Federer could've defeated Nadal at the French this year, as he did in Madrid, we'll never know.

OK, but it's not everyday that Federer wins FO.

Let's not pretend like Nadal played out of his mind in Madrid final. He was almost beaten by Djokovic in the semis. Do you think Djokovic would take out Nadal at the French because he gave him a tough fight in Madrid?

dlk
12-01-2009, 04:04 PM
Couldn't agree more.

Also: Most of the past power-based #1s would, if trained with modern methods using modern equipment, perform on a level with the current bunch. Class is class, full-stop.

Technically, the players of the 80s are comparable. But the athleticism of todays' players are superior. Yes, if training was equal, todays' physiques & physical ability could be achieved. Same as all sports.

TheMusicLover
12-01-2009, 04:07 PM
Anyone who gets to #1 deserves it. Especially Federer. :)

LOL - well I think Nadal really deserved it last year just as much. But then I like them both, so no prob with me! :)

I don't think you can say that it's luck any more than you can say that Nadal was lucky that Verdasco didn't beat him in Australia, and Del Potro was lucky he won those tie-breaks. Roddick could still have made the final of Wimbledon with or without Nadal, and Federer could've defeated Nadal at the French this year, as he did in Madrid, we'll never know.

Exactly. 'What's', 'if's' and 'but's' don't count.

Moose Malloy
12-01-2009, 04:17 PM
Does anyone have the point total Lendl accumulated in 1989?


There were no points totals in those days, ranking was determined by the average amount of points you earned overall. Which is why it took so long for Wilander to get to #1 in '88(he had to win 3 slams to get there)

BTW, the Year End Masters did not count for ATP ranking back then.

here were the final ranking averages for 1989:

Lendl 213.214 from 15 events
Becker 189.916 from 12 events
Edberg 150.857 from 15 events

more here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=203275

Thought it was interesting that every player Lendl lost to that year went on to win the tournament.

Now, according to ATP website, Lendl regained No.1 on January 20 1989, which was before the Australian Open 1989 (which he won beating Mecir).

No, it says he regained the #1 ranking on Jan 30, 1989 which was the day after the AO ended.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 04:19 PM
OK, but it's not everyday that Federer wins FO.

Let's not pretend like Nadal played out of his mind in Madrid final. He was almost beaten by Djokovic in the semis. Do you think Djokovic would take out Nadal at the French because he gave him a tough fight in Madrid?

Well it's not every day that Nadal gets beaten at Roland Garros, but it happened, so he was vulnerable.

Chadwixx
12-01-2009, 04:19 PM
Anyone in the current top 20 would beat peak Lendl, that's not even debatable due to changes in raquet/strings/training.

Gotta give him credit though, he was hitting clean topspin with that little bity racket.

GustafsonFanatic
12-01-2009, 04:20 PM
No, it says he regained the #1 ranking on Jan 30, 1989 which was the day after the AO ended.

OK, that makes more sense.

lambielspins
12-01-2009, 04:38 PM
Lendl didnt really need to overtake anyone to become #1. The guy who took #1 from him was Wilander and Wilander fell off completely, so it wasnt like Lendl had to ever overtake him back. Lendl basically had to hold off guys he had already been ahead like Becker and Edberg, and many would argue he failed to do so with Becker even if the computer said differently.

Federer though also in a sense didnt really have to overtake anyone. Nadal's injuries took him out of the #1 spot in the middle of the year, not really Federer himself. Then it was a matter of hanging on the rest of the year but the overtaking part was done by Nadal's injuries and not by Federer.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 04:46 PM
lambielspins - but you could argue that Nadal's playing style which allowed him to beat Federer in 3 straight slam finals ultimately was his downfall.

kishnabe
12-01-2009, 05:25 PM
When Lendl reclaimed #1 in 1989 he was ranked in the top 10 above Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Michael Chang, Brad Gilbert, Andre Agassi, Aaron Krickstein, Alberto Mancini and Jay Berger.

1989 was a very strong year for Lendl. He started the year by capturing his first Australian Open title with a straight sets final victory over Miloslav Mecir and went on to claim 10 titles out of 17 tournaments he entered.

But it was Mats Wildander who stole his #1 ranking in '88 with his amazing 3-slam year. Wilander faded badly, ending '89 at #12, leaving the path open again for Lendl.

So I think Federer is more impressive considering how incredibly strong the top 10 are at the moment.

Same thing He said. Willander should have stayed, he would have won more.

robow7
12-01-2009, 06:03 PM
Anyone in the current top 20 would beat peak Lendl, that's not even debatable due to changes in raquet/strings/training.

You don't have a clue as to just how big a forehand Lendl hit and what a machine he was. His athleticism and endurance was incredible. Give him in his prime, a modern racquet and Gonzo's forehand might look small.

MuseFan
12-01-2009, 06:18 PM
You don't have a clue as to just how big a forehand Lendl hit and what a machine he was. His athleticism and endurance was incredible. Give him in his prime, a modern racquet and Gonzo's forehand might look small.

That's the point I made. If it was current top pros against Lendl with HIS equipment and training it would be an easy victory for a current pro.

roysid
12-01-2009, 06:21 PM
In today's point system (which gives more weight to slams and year end masters) what would lendl and becker's point be in 1989?

robow7
12-01-2009, 06:33 PM
That's the point I made. If it was current top pros against Lendl with HIS equipment and training it would be an easy victory for a current pro.

His equipment has been bettered, but his training has not likely been improved much. As Becker once said, "Up until that time, they all played tennis, Lendl was the first to WORK tennis."

JoshDragon
12-01-2009, 06:50 PM
Hey guys

Anyone familiar with the field Lendl was up against, and what he had to do, to reclaim the year end No 1 ranking after losing it?

Just wondering whose achievement is more impressive - his or Fed's this year.

I think Lendl's, regaining of the #1 ranking might have been a little bit more impressive than Roger, just because Nadal was sidelined with an injury during a very important time of the year. Federer more or less inherited the #1 ranking from him.

Rhino
12-01-2009, 06:57 PM
I think Lendl's, regaining of the #1 ranking might have been a little bit more impressive than Roger, just because Nadal was sidelined with an injury during a very important time of the year. Federer more or less inherited the #1 ranking from him.

Part of the game is knowing how to pace yourself. Nadal made bad decisions (bad tactics) by playing Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Rome, Madrid, and Roland Garros back-to-back. Add to that his grinding style of play, and of course he hurts his knees. Federer on the other hand is smarter when selecting his schedule. I think that's part of the game.

grafselesfan
12-01-2009, 10:49 PM
I honestly dont think either was that impressive. Lendl getting #1 back through default by Wilander collapsing right from the start of the next year and falling out of contention completely, and then being in the eyes of most outperformed by Becker who began the year solidly behind him but still being ranked a questionable #1 by the computer. Federer getting #1 through Nadal's miseason injury mostly. Both are great champions but their returns to #1 are nothing that wow me upon closer analysis. I think what is most impressive is that both showed the longevity to be able to have a chance at being ranked #1 and winning slams for that long a time period more than anything.

I think a much more impressive case of reclaiming status as #1 player was Connors in 1982. Granted the computer did not acknowledge him as the year end #1, but Connors as Wimbledon and U.S Open Winner in 82 restaked himself the true #1 for that year over McEnroe who went slamless that year (and lost the Wimbledon final to Connors). Also he did regain the #1 ranking for some weeks late in 82 and early in 83, so he did officialy reclaim #1 too, just not year end #1. This was impressive since McEnroe was alot younger and seemed to have passed Connors by for good, was dominating Connors really by 1980 and especialy 1981. On the other hand even this was diminished a bit by how aided Connors was by Borg's stunning retirement, it is not the same as if he had overtaken both Borg and McEnroe. Borg had at that time been dominating Connors for alot longer and even more decisively still at that point in time, despite than McEnroe had overtaken Borg himself as king of tennis in 1981. Plus many believe McEnroe's performance suffered with the retirement of Borg, that it was a big letdown to McEnroe.

big bang
12-01-2009, 11:54 PM
That's the point I made. If it was current top pros against Lendl with HIS equipment and training it would be an easy victory for a current pro.
you really dont know much about Lendl do you? the only thing thats overrated is todays equipment.. Lendl beat guys that used ps 6.0 85 and prestige pro΄s, you think the frames made today are superior to these?:shock:

OrangeOne
12-02-2009, 12:36 AM
e3whThat's the point I made. If it was current top pros against Lendl with HIS equipment and training it would be an easy victory for a current pro.

There were bands before muse, players before federer and nadal...

Seriously, Lendl practically invented the power game, and as mentioned below, led the tour in the fitness craze. Remember, before the 80s, the concept of fitness training for success in sport (doing many things in gyms and out other than the sport itself) was somewhat alien.

Remember too, that Sampras was truly schooled in what it took to be a #1 after a stay at Lendl's house, training and working out with him.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 05:09 AM
I`ll be the first to admit that Federer got a lot of help reclaiming his no 1 spot from Nadal being injured in Wimbledon and from Soderling in FO taking him out so early.

The main reason Lendl took the no 1 spot back in 1989 was that Wilander was not motivated at all- He did what he set out to do- be world-no 1 (since Lendl beat him in an exo in Barcelona in 1987 6-0,6-0 where Wilander had borrowed his equipment and this event ****ed Wilander off caused him to practice like never before) after that- Mission accomplished- He was never the same. And Becker and Edberg had yet to peak. (besides at Wimbledon)

To answer the OP- equally non-impressive?

grafselesfan
12-02-2009, 08:39 AM
I`ll be the first to admit that Federer got a lot of help reclaiming his no 1 spot from Nadal being injured in Wimbledon and from Soderling in FO taking him out so early.

The main reason Lendl took the no 1 spot back in 1989 was that Wilander was not motivated at all- He did what he set out to do- be world-no 1 (since Lendl beat him in an exo in Barcelona in 1987 6-0,6-0 where Wilander had borrowed his equipment and this event ****ed Wilander off caused him to practice like never before) after that- Mission accomplished- He was never the same. And Becker and Edberg had yet to peak. (besides at Wimbledon)

To answer the OP- equally non-impressive?

Unusually enough we pretty much completely agree. That is basically exactly what I said also. If there was an option for Connors on the list I would have voted for him easily, even with Borg's retirement.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 08:49 AM
Unusually enough we pretty much completely agree. That is basically exactly what I said also. If there was an option for Connors on the list I would have voted for him easily, even with Borg's retirement.

Ill be damn! You and me agree? :shock: :)
Connors- Absolutely! He was even older than Lendl (29 at the time in 1989) and Federer (28 at the time in 2009)

grafselesfan
12-02-2009, 08:52 AM
Ill be damn! You and me agree? :shock: :)
Connors- Absolutely! He was even older than Lendl (29 at the time in 1989) and Federer (28 at the time in 2009)

Yeah and he overtook the much younger McEnroe, who himself had dethroned the great Borg as king of tennis the previous year, as well as holding off the much younger Lendl. Although he spent time at #1 late in 82 and early in 83 the computer did not rank him year end #1 in 1982 but for all practical purposes he was. Wimbledon and U.S Open winner of 1982 is hands down #1 for the year 1982 over a slamless McEnroe regardless what the computer said. It was ironic Connors was screwed by the rankings and not given full recognition for what he achieved in 82, after many earlier years where he spent alot of undeserved weeks ranked #1.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Yeah and he overtook the much younger McEnroe, who himself had dethroned the great Borg as king of tennis the previous year, as well as holding off the much younger Lendl. Although he spent time at #1 late in 82 and early in 83 the computer did not rank him year end #1 in 1982 but for all practical purposes he was. Wimbledon and U.S Open winner of 1982 is hands down #1 for the year 1982 over a slamless McEnroe regardless what the computer said. It was ironic Connors was screwed by the rankings and not given full recognition for what he achieved in 82, after many earlier years where he spent alot of undeserved weeks ranked #1.

I fully agree- Feels kind of weird seeing how they use to split the year end no 1! There are even years when they were 3 players spliting it, very unfair imo.
Yes, very impressive stuff by Connors. He was very close to 30 years old when defeating Mcenroe in Wimbledon being just points from defeat, and also later that summer he beat Lendl to win his 5th USO.

Moose Malloy
12-02-2009, 10:08 AM
Lendl's shoulder problems were a major issue throughout '88, he played a reduced schedule that year & had surgery after the USO.

Wilander received a bit of an assist in getting to #1 that year(not unlike like Fed this year)

And when Wilander beat Lendl at the USO(in a 5 hour match btw) it was the first time he had beaten Lendl in 3 years...its not like he really had Lendl's number at the end of '88, he sure as heck wasn't in Lendl's head like Nadal was in Fed's. Yes, Mats was #1 for that year, but none of the other players really feared him or were gunning for him like Fed-Nadal who were so far ahead of everyone else. There was a lot of parity then, I know 'won 3 slams' on paper looks like a convincing season, but Mats wasn't really dominating week in, week out & came very close to defeat many times during those 3 slams (unlike Fed's habit of winning 3 slams a year losing only one set etc or Nadal's habit of destroying everyone at the French for 4 straight years)

and remember how many majors Edberg, Cash, & Becker had already won by '88(and Edberg & Becker had already been ranked as high as 2 by then) Mats was hardly Nadal or Fed like(look at the way Djokovic & Murray talk of those 2 - like they are gods are something) Mats hardly inspired that sort of awe from other top players circa '88. Mats going slamless in '89 was not surprising at all (at least not to most analysts. Mats went slamless in '86 & '87 as well. Lots of great players those years.)

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 10:17 AM
Lendl's shoulder problems were a major issue throughout '88, he played a reduced schedule that year & had surgery after the USO.

Wilander received a bit of an assist in getting to #1 that year(not unlike like Fed this year)

And when Wilander beat Lendl at the USO(in a 5 hour match btw) it was the first time he had beaten Lendl in 3 years...its not like he really had Lendl's number at the end of '88, he sure as heck wasn't in Lendl's head like Nadal was in Fed's. Yes, Mats was #1 for that year, but none of the other players really feared him or were gunning for him like Fed-Nadal who were so far ahead of everyone else. There was a lot of parity then, I know 'won 3 slams' on paper looks like a convincing season, but Mats wasn't really dominating week in, week out & came very close to defeat many times during those 3 slams (unlike Fed's habit of winning 3 slams a year losing only one set etc or Nadal's habit of destroying everyone at the French for 4 straight years)

and remember how many majors Edberg, Cash, & Becker had already won by '88(and Edberg & Becker had already been ranked as high as 2 by then) Mats was hardly Nadal or Fed like(look at the way Djokovic & Murray talk of those 2 - like they are gods are something) Mats hardly inspired that sort of awe from other top players circa '88. Mats going slamless in '89 was not surprising at all (at least not to most analysts. Mats went slamless in '86 & '87 as well. Lots of great players those years.)

Very good post.

But despite having a 7-15 h2h VS Lendl you have to remember that they went 4-4 in Slams . 1986 and 1987 were twillight years for Wilander who had had huge succes at an early age, he managed to regroup though and had his best year in his career in 1988.

grafselesfan
12-02-2009, 10:20 AM
Dont get me wrong on one thing. I think even if Wilander had remained in form Lendl and in 89 also Becker "likely" would have passed him anyway. I dont think most times Wilander was the best player, though he is underrated by many people. He was the best in 88, and he beat Lendl in some other big matches over the year, but most times Lendl is the better player. I dont mean to make it out like the indomitable force dropped out of contention. Just that as it was, Wilander fell out of contention completely in 1989 so it is not like Lendl even had to pass the one who was over him in 88. I think he would have likely done so anyway, but as it transpired he really didnt even have to.

President of Serve/Volley
12-02-2009, 10:20 AM
Couldn't agree more.

Also: Most of the past power-based #1s would, if trained with modern methods using modern equipment, perform on a level with the current bunch. Class is class, full-stop.


On the other hand, if you put today's crop back in time, they would struggle a bit...

I would love to see Nadal vs Edberg. Attacking tennis vs Defense.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 10:24 AM
Dont get me wrong on one thing. I think even if Wilander had remained in form Lendl and in 89 also Becker "likely" would have passed him anyway. I dont think most times Wilander was the best player, though he is underrated by many people. He was the best in 88, and he beat Lendl in some other big matches over the year, but most times Lendl is the better player. I dont mean to make it out like the indomitable force dropped out of contention. Just that as it was, Wilander fell out of contention completely in 1989 so it is not like Lendl even had to pass the one who was over him in 88. I think he would have likely done so anyway, but as it transpired he really didnt even have to.

If people would have read Wilanders biography they would have been even more impressed bu his accomplishments, this is a man who didnt like practicing, he had a lot of interests compared to the other "robots", he drank lots of beers even during tournaments and he didnt practice properly until the age of 23, and had his best year when he was 24.

robow7
12-02-2009, 12:07 PM
e3wh


Seriously, Lendl practically invented the power game

Lendl was THE prototype or blueprint for today's tennis. There is no doubt in my mind that if he was playing today with his former game and today's racquet and string technology, he would be right at the top. Saddly, I can't say that for many of the past greats, I mean I love Edberg, Mac's, Rafter S&V game but now that guys can pass you 10 feet behind the baseline while off balance, their games couldn't hold up in this day and age. Lendl on the other hand would blend right in and with his edge of determination over some of the mental midgets out there now, I think he would be quite feared.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
12-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Lendl was THE prototype or blueprint for today's tennis. There is no doubt in my mind that if he was playing today with his former game and today's racquet and string technology, he would be right at the top. Saddly, I can't say that for many of the past greats, I mean I love Edberg, Mac's, Rafter S&V game but now that guys can pass you 10 feet behind the baseline while off balance, their games couldn't hold up in this day and age. Lendl on the other hand would blend right in and with his edge of determination over some of the mental midgets out there now, I think he would be quite feared.

Of course he would! Who said otherwise?
This is a man who invented the "power tennis" and who worked his *** off on treadmills before people had even heard of them.

big bang
12-02-2009, 01:44 PM
Of course he would! Who said otherwise?
This is a man who invented the "power tennis" and who worked his *** off on treadmills before people had even heard of them.

yeah Lendl was a bit of a badass:)

timnz
12-02-2009, 01:51 PM
This is possibly the only time in tennis history that this has happened. Every tournament that Lendl lost that year, he lost to the eventual champion. Think about it, he had NO bad losses that year, because he only lost to the most in-form player.

I don't know if that has happened any other time in tennis history where the only losses you lose to the eventual champion.

That makes it it a very classy year for Lendl in my opinion.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 01:56 PM
In 1989, Becker won two Grand Slam singles titles, the only year he won more than one. After losing to Edberg in the French Open semifinals, he defeated Edberg in the Wimbledon final and then beat Lendl in the US Open final. He also helped West Germany retain the Davis Cup, defeating Andre Agassi in the semifinal round 6–7, 6–7, 7–6, 6–4, 6–4. As a result, Becker was named Player of The Year by the ATP Tour. The World No. 1 ranking, however, still eluded him.

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Becker)

That was such an odd year in that Wilander plummetted (I don't recall any surgery, unless it was a lobotomy), Becker won the 2 most important GS titles and a resurgent Lendl won the AO and 10 other titles. I tended to give that year to Becker. He was pretty impressive and he did beat Ivan at the USO. Going into '89, I really thought it would be Wilander's year...

Cyan
12-02-2009, 01:57 PM
Equally unimpressive.

Lendl got number one back because Wilander went MIA snorting coke and Fed got number one back because Nadal injured his knees.

jrepac
12-02-2009, 02:00 PM
Of course he would! Who said otherwise?
This is a man who invented the "power tennis" and who worked his *** off on treadmills before people had even heard of them.

I do think Lendl would find a way to hold his own; his groundies were very strong plus his serve was wicked. I think Connors too, would be fine in the rallies, based on speed and flatness of stroke, but his serve would be a big liability.

w/the great serve and volleyers, it really comes down to if the S&V would compensate for the relatively weaker ground game...of the group, I think Mac would stand the best chance. At his very best, he could hold his own from the back of the court (as he did against Bjorn, Jimmy and sometimes Ivan) and really mess up their rhythm with the serve and volley. He was completely unpredictable and dangerous; no one like him since, IMHO.